AS a concerned and empathetic employee of the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GUYSUCO) for over 20 years, I wish to address some of the criticisms that have been thrown the way of the board of directors.
Firstly, I must admit my own personal disgust with the recent spate of disparagements levelled at the corporation and more specifically, at the

corporation’s board.
I also wish to use this medium to remind our critics of some of the measures which the current board in itself has put in place as well as how heartily and conscientiously they have been working to do their utmost in the fight to revive our sugar industry.

No one needs to be reminded of the sugar industry’s significance and importance – having existed for more than 300 years, the sugar industry still remains a significant player in the national economy, retaining the position of being the largest single employer in the Caribbean – providing direct employment to a range of between 17,000 to approximately 18,500 workers and perhaps even with more profound worth, the indirect employment of more than 150,000 Guyanese.
Surely, we can only fathom the extent to which this constant caustic derailing and belittlement through ‘Letters to Editors’ and other means can affect these individuals and the corporation’s management and staff.

After careful scrutiny of the direct “battering” on GUYSUCO’s management – its board in particular – I can most out-rightly conclude that not only are these arguments grossly exaggerated but they are blatantly questioning of the capabilities of the management which comes off as belittling and demoralising in most cases and scenarios that have arisen in our press.

On the criticism that there is no agriculturalist on the board, this is not true. The board currently has two serving agriculturalists. Additionally, the board is supported in its decision-making in this area, by a team of several agricultural specialists and other technical staff and agencies both locally and overseas. It seems that some critics want to have a board made up of only agriculturalists. If this is the standard practice when composing a board, then it follows that a brewery company would have a board comprising  only qualified brewers. There is no wisdom in this opinion.

Are these persons aware that any state company’s board is appointed by the highest office in the land? Do they care that to question the integrity of officials of a state-run entity by extension defies the good judgment of the country’s highest authority?  Why then is there persistence in vilification and subjugation?  When will this end?

I will begin my argument by highlighting the biggest issue the corporation has at the moment and in all truthfulness, they have had for some time now – the issue of production decline so often written about in the press – which has also been compounded by financial problems as well as what I can call sub-standard practices in the general working arena of the company.

Most of the general public would not know this, but it is the current board that enacted the immediate move towards mechanisation that has been so necessary to complement the decline in worker-attendance and to certain levels guarantee increase in the tonnes of cane provided to the factories of the different estates.  Additionally, the return to practices of the past – one of which is flood fallowing – is being resuscitated and certainly will become more visible during the second crop of this year. This is an immediate guarantee for improved yields based on analysis and consultations which have been conducted in the past and currently.

On the factory side – the board which has the mandate of setting out policies and directions on the way forward – has constantly involved their technical staff – both locally and regionally – in improving the output of our processing units.  Not to mention the extensive training to which various levels of staff are exposed to ensure that our levels of maintenance of the equipment are upheld and the need for foreign consultants becomes diminished.
During the ‘out-of-crop’ season, long awaited upgrades and systems to guarantee improvements would be carried out; this again is an initiative taken by the board. One which has been in combination with improved procurement practices and, certainly in my opinion, has had significant savings.

In the area of finance, the board and management have taken appropriate measures in dealing with defaulters, which has in turn resulted in savings. Further, hundreds of millions of dollars pass through the corporation yearly, particularly in the area of procurement. The board has recognised that to some extent the old procurement policies were outdated and to my understanding, revised the procurement policy after a series of consultations across the industry. The newly developed procurement plan which assures of a tight rein on unnecessary spending is currently being implemented.  In fact, some board members have confidently argued that this change resulted in savings of more than $500M during 2012 (projecting to save $1B in 2013), a direct mandate from the board to the management through the new procurement policy.

I myself have seen the amount of work put into this new procurement plan and strategy, the work done by some board members on this new procedure(s) has gone beyond what I think is a board member’s duty. Extensive man hour and outreach sessions have been conducted in ensuring that the best and optimum practices will be put in place to guarantee the best for Guysuco with regard to purchasing. I’m glad to say that the new plan has been implemented and from all indications, it is proving to be as fruitful as envisaged.

The current board is also focused on transparency and has identified a board member to oversee this new initiative, someone who has done tremendously well in reducing fraud and penalising staffers who do not follow the  financial policy.

But while so much work has been done and continues to be done, our board is still getting the brunt of the stick from their critics. They have even been direct attacks on individuals of the board. I recall being appalled on numerous occasions of the concerns directed on the compensatory benefits of the company’s Chairman of the Board, Dr. Raj Singh, who has acceded to executive chairman.

I don’t think a lot of persons realised what it meant; let me explain, being the executive chairman simply means being totally involved in the day-to-day affairs of the corporation – a hands-on approach.  What a better way of having a hands-on approach to managing this industry? It is my opinion and I’m sure this is shared by many others (who know the individual) that the appointment of the executive chairman could never have come to a more suitable person. In the past, we remember former executive chairpersons such as Mr. Michael Brassington and Mr. Harold Davis, but presently, in our years of interaction with Dr. Singh at all levels applicable to myself and many others in the corporation, we have observed and thoroughly appreciated his direction and predisposition to allowing face to face interaction with staff members.
In fact, a recent familiarisation meeting with staff across the sugar belt has resulted in an overturn of some decisions that now liberate workers’ actions – not to mention the immediate exposure of certain practices which have been so succinctly adjusted that there has been compromise.  The unions also have readily agreed and are complying with his rulings.

Is it too much to ask that we compassionately give the chairman the comfort and scope to prove himself?  As it is, he is restrained by constant criticism and even subject to what I would describe as intrusive and unnecessary disclosures.

Really, time does not permit me to list all that GUYSUCO’s board is doing, but while we await the final decision on their future as a body, permit me to acknowledge those constructive criticisms and assure that steps towards the positive and drastic turnaround of the industry is on the fast track. And in saying this, I would like to make a suggestion to all the informed critics whom I feel have also made some very good points in their recommendations when it comes to improving GUYSUCO’s current position. As such, I would really like to see that the President’s challenge be taken up and that these persons are allowed to engage GUYSUCO at some level that would allow for their constructive criticisms to be heard and given a fair ear.

In closing, I would like to say that we, the management and staff, crave your patience and remind all that with the support of our Government – our stakeholders who have plugged billions annually into our business to ensure its success – the unions who pledge support to plans going forward while defending those workers’ rights, and most importantly, the people who dedicate their time and energies to the industry, there will be positive change. Just recently, the EU presented its penultimate tranche of US$6B to the industry, I truly hope that this money can be put to the best use and help turn this situation around. I would also appeal to all that we encourage and support our human resource factor, for we are the chief determinants of the fate of the industry.

Finally, I wish to state that I am personally aware of the dedication, sacrifice and hard work of the board of directors, on many occasions sacrificing personal and family time working long hours into the evening without pay for the benefit of the sugar industry and country. Because of the size of the entity, board members are sent a large and constant stream of documents which they have to read and analyse for decision-making. This can be a very time consuming and daunting task and therefore requires some level of commitment to stay with.

I am proud of my service of over 20 years working at GUYSUCO through the lower levels to the senior management which qualifies me to pronounce on the administration of the  corporation. I therefore understand the complex challenges faced and the level of effort and sacrifice required and being made by the board of directors in turning the sugar industry around.